California CCW - concealed carry forum

IAmASensFan wrote:

How many are needed?

njeske wrote:

As of today, HR4547 is up to 88 co-sponsors and it's senate companion bill is up to 21 co-sponsors. The more the merrier.

Personally - I'd like to see >400 co-sponsors in the House and >80 co-sponsors in the Senate when it gets there ... and higher numbers when the bill (s) are voted into law.

Realistically, I truly don't care how MANY co-sponsors there are... as long as it gets passed w/o anything detrimental done to those bills.

HR 4547 now has 92 co-sponsors. An increase of four, all signed on yesterday, 7-19-06.

First Flight wrote:

HR 4547 now has 92 co-sponsors. An increase of four, all signed on yesterday, 7-19-06.

Is this an indication of momentum? I am not too familiar with the process.

I wonder if it is because there are lobbyists actively persuing representatives for their sponsorship...

Gunworthy wrote:

First Flight wrote:

HR 4547 now has 92 co-sponsors. An increase of four, all signed on yesterday, 7-19-06.

Is this an indication of momentum? I am not too familiar with the process.

I wonder if it is because there are lobbyists actively persuing representatives for their sponsorship...

That's what I'm wondering as well since I'm not sure how the process works exactly. Also, is a sponsor almost guaranteed to vote yes when it comes time to do so?

I've read the bills and they seem pretty straight forward, is there any reason that anyone can think of that shall issue state's representatives would have to vote against this? If just the shall issue states representatives voted for it, would that be enough to pass it?

What I'm getting at, is if the Shall Issue states are enough, then this is as good as passed, right? If the Shall Issue states aren't enough, how much more is needed, and who are the most likely to vote in favor? Those are the states we should be targeting (e-mailing friends, etc..).

Aside from co-sponsers, anybody know WHERE the bill is right now? Stuck in committee somewhere I presume? Which committee? Thats the place to start...

IF it gets out of Committee this session, it will pass the House... Then its off to the Senate... The numbers are a LOT tighter in there... It would come down to 4 or 5 swing republicans (Hagel, Snow, McCain, AKA the usual suspects) and a handful of pro gun democrats... Get enough of either to swing the right way and it passes...

BUT... More likely than not, its stalled in committee because nobody wants to vote on it prior to the election.

seanbonner wrote:

I've read the bills and they seem pretty straight forward, is there any reason that anyone can think of that shall issue state's representatives would have to vote against this? If just the shall issue states representatives voted for it, would that be enough to pass it?

EASILY. 65% of the House are from shall-issue states, and 80% of the Senate are from shall-issue states. If they all voted for it it would pass overwhelmingly.

But will they? There are a lot of factors in play. Strangely, the more states are shall-issue, the less they care about this bill. California is an isolated little island in a sea of shall-issueness. Would it make any difference to someone in Colorado if this bill passed? Would it change anything?

Even in the shall-issue states, a lot of the time the shall-issue bill had to overcome strong opposition to pass, so even reps from shall-issue states may not support shall-issue.

What I'm getting at, is if the Shall Issue states are enough, then this is as good as passed, right? If the Shall Issue states aren't enough, how much more is needed, and who are the most likely to vote in favor? Those are the states we should be targeting (e-mailing friends, etc..).

If the shall-issue states had strong support for this bill it would pass easily. It even has three co-sponsors from California, so there is a lot of support. But I think a bill would need substantially more co-sponsors to make it.

As for where this bill is now: It's still stuck in the House Judiciary Committee. I suppose they are trying to get more co-sponsors before they move out of that committee.

Looking at the history, very similar legislation has been introduced every year for the past three years. This has the most co-sponsors it has ever had, and for the first time it has a corresponding Senate bill, and it's an NRA priority. Obviously there is some serious interest in getting this bill through. Will it be enough for this year? I don't know. Will it get through next year? If the Repubs lose either the House or the Senate, this bill wouldn't be able to pass.

I sure hope it passes but it's iffy.

Think of it this way: in most of the states that went shall-issue, it took multiple tries to get the bills to go through. It will probably be the same in Congress.

When in doubt, do it yourself...

OK... The bill is in the Judiciary committee subcommittee on Crime Terrorism and Security.

Chairman (this is the guy right now) is Howard Coble from North Carolina.
Its a VERY week committee for Republicans...
One name we should consider contacting is DAN LUNDGREN from CA.

We should contact Coble and ask him to move the bill forward through committee...

Unfortunately, the Democrats on the Committee are POWER HOUSES and HUGELY anti gun- and many are from the CBC which is PROFOUNDLY anti gun.

Ranking member- Robert Scott (forget about it)
Sheila Jackson Lee (forget it)
Maxine Waters from L.A. (forget it)
Marty Meehan (Dont waste your time)
Bill Delahunt (Nope)
Tony Weiner (NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS)

In short, although the republicans have the numbers, the Democrats on that committee have ALL the power... It will take a miracle to get it out of that committee.

RomansDad wrote:

In short, although the republicans have the numbers, the Democrats on that committee have ALL the power... It will take a miracle to get it out of that committee.

Ouch. Well, if it has enough sponsors they can bypass the committee, but that's probably not easy. Ok, this bill may be a long shot. If we get it, it will be the doom of gun control in the US I believe.

As for the CBC (Congressional Black Caucus), it staggers my mind how eager they are to support Jim Crow laws.

Concerning the CBC, former Oklahoma Representative JC Watts call them "race-hustling poverty pimps."

This is what JC Watts looks like:

I would love to create a Black sub-forum here if we had the interest or the traffic. I have contacted some of the very few Black gun rights advocates on the net but I don't know if we're getting any traffic from them.

It took 11 years for HR218 (LE Off-Duty country wide) This will take as long if not longer. You will need to be a resident of the state the CCW is issued from. Look at Utah, Arizona web sites about living in those states and having their out of state CCW. They don't allow it. Sorry

I did read it and it is a big unanswered question. Citing current practice by the states was the point I was trying to make. It could be watered down in the end. Yes, the courts will have a field day with this one. In over 20 years or training and law enforcment I have run accross three federal CCW's. Only four exist. They have been attached to bills going thru congress and the senate, very rare, and very important people.

ccwinstructor wrote:

In over 20 years or training and law enforcment I have run accross three federal CCW's. Only four exist. They have been attached to bills going thru congress and the senate, very rare, and very important people.

Can you elaborate?

This is better than a slap in the face by a cold kipper in a blizzard, but doesn't help us at all as California residents, except when we go out of state - and then only if states such as Utah continue to issue non-resident permits (I don't see why they should stop, but that has been suggested as a possible outcome).

The title of HR 4547 is:

Title: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State

The wording within the bill is:

A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Taking these two together, it is clear that the intent of the bill is that we California residents with a Utah permit get no privileges in California.

If this came to court, I'm pretty sure that the judgement would be based on the law's clear intent, not on an unsubstantiated quibble about the wording. (Lawyers on this site, isn't that the case?)

Maybe if the wording within the section was more specific and contradictory to the title, that would be another matter, but the fact is that the wording (even if it is less specific than the title) is completely consistent with the title, and therefore in context there's no grounds for suggesting that it really means something different.

It would be nice to be wrong, but I think my chances of persuading Sherif Baca to give me a permit on the grounds of "Protection of Life" are several orders of magnitude more likely.

Still, as long as I can still get my Utah permit renewed, it'll let me carry in 49 states, that's better than 29.

Admin wrote:

Perhaps a lawyer could read this and explain how and why it is interpretted. And of course, the courts will have a whack at this if it ever passes.

I tried once...

Here's the condensed version:

1. Regardless of how the bill reads or its intent (there is NO artistic language that can get around this);

2. It is BEYOND the Federal government's power to FORCE a state to issue CCWs to its own citizens;

3. It CAN FORCE a state to RECOGNIZE OTHER state's CCWs issued to THEIR OWN CITIZENS.

Thus, REGARDLESS of how the bill(s) are written:

The bill that purports to FORCE California to issue CCW permits is unconstitutional, would be turned over by the first Court to hear it, and would CONTINUE to be turned down all the way to thr U.S.S.C. It is not a close call.

The bill that purports to force California to recognize Pennsylvania's Citizens home CCWs IS Constitutional (as California's refusal to extend Pennsylvanians the same ability to defend themselves as they enjoy in their home State is an "UNDUE INTERFERENCE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.")

HR 4547 now has 93 co-sponsors. One more as of 7-20-06. Its not how many co-sponsors you have that's important, it's HOW INFLUENTIAL they are with the rest of the House members.

Here is a direct excerpt from the text of the bill,

"..a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device)..."

It mentions nothing about a resident permit! Therefore, we would be able to carry with a Nevada or Utah permit here in occupied California. Sorry Comrade Feinswine!

RomansDad got it.

In reality this bill mearly enforces true faith and credit. ie. the reason someone married in California is still married when they cross state lines. The same holds true with drivers licenses.

The best thing to do if this bill passes would be to just get a UTAH Non-Res permit, and bypass Kalifornia all together.

If they aren't interested in giving out permits, they aren't interested in the money they'll lose as a result of 100,000 or so permit holders going out of state.

stag1500 wrote:

It mentions nothing about a resident permit! Therefore, we would be able to carry with a Nevada or Utah permit here in occupied California. Sorry Comrade Feinswine!

The intent is clear from the wording in the title IMMEDIATELY in front of that sentence.

It's a pity that we have to consider the preceding words, or we could lose that annoying preamble to the 2nd and trump those dratted militia reconstructionists. After all, if I leave out the inconvenient bit, the 2nd reads "The right of the people . . . shall not be infringed"

RomansDad wrote:

The bill that purports to force California to recognize Pennsylvania's Citizens home CCWs IS Constitutional (as California's refusal to extend Pennsylvanians the same ability to defend themselves as they enjoy in their home State is an "UNDUE INTERFERENCE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.")

Furthermore, if I extrapolate this correctly, the federal law can't force California to extend to California residents the same ability to defend themselves in California as in their home state, partly because it is their home state and also because this is NOT interstate commerce.

So, even if you are right and the law says we can carry at home with a Utah permit, it's pointless if (the extrapolation of) RomansDad is right and California can choose to ignore it.

EDITED 7/23/06

Let me take this further by using an analogy, in case anyone is still in doubt.

"Prime your brass, weigh 57gns of XYZ powder and use a 110 grn Speer Boattail.."

Does this give enough data? Can we use any old brass? .44Mag maybe? Any old caliber Speer boattail? It doesn't say not to.

No, the title of the article was "Reloading the 30-06 Springfield."

HR 4547 now has 94 co-sponsors. One more added yesterday. That would mean the bill is still active. Slowly getting stronger.

let's just hope this bill doesn't get stuck in committee forever and can actually make it to the floor of the house/senate.